Stanley Ketchel vs Tony Zale

Four years, prime for prime Graziano would not have been competitive with Zale,imo.

 

Nope, he managed to beat him because Zale was 5 years past his best!

 

Fringe fighters don't win the middleweight championship.

 

Zale's record 1934-1942:

51-16-2 29KOs (1 loss against a LHW champ, every other loss against a nobody. No fights of the year. Beat Al Hostak to win MW title). 74% win rate against inferior competition

Zale's record 1946-Retirement:

15-3 15KOs (all 3 losses against Middleweight champs, 3 fights of the year, beat Rocky Graziano (better fighter than Hostak) to win MW title). 83% win rate against better competition

 

I'd probably go with Ketchel, he was a beast. Not to disparage Zale, I think he takes out a lot of middleweights. This would be the kind of fight that ages both guys

 

Yeah whoops bad comment on my part

 

I definitely think Ketchel gives problems though. I also think he'd win a 20+ rounder. Zales too skilled for me over 15, and wouldn't get stopped IMO. He might get dropped, though.

 

It ketchel was campaigning in the 40s and gets well taught he might win ...otherwise he might get massacred

 

Prior to his war service Zale beat;
Hostak
Apostoli
Abrams
Mamakos
Who did he beat after his 4 years out?

 

Ketchel was and is always rated over Zale. Tony was a tough aggressive fighter but he would be fighting a bone crunching puncher without the defense to escape from harm. Ketchel by KO within 7 rounds. Zale starts quick but eventually runs into a haymaker.

 

I also have to go with Ketchel, too many no names beat Zale, if they could do it, surely Ketchel does, TKO by round 9, too much power and he got better as fights went on, not sure about the Langford fight, but most say he lost the 1st 3 or so rounds, then was coming on at the end, either way he maintained throughout a fight, too tough, too much power for Zale